I think you're all thinking that Game Freak is going to make big changes, but most likely graphics will be the only change. Pokemon Sun & Moon sold gangbusters, why would they shake the formula of the games by adding open world, choices, etc, if the games have sold mighty fine up until now? That doesn't mean I can dream, though.

You're probably right, but from what I understand, Sun/Moon shook up the formula a little bit already (still haven't played them.... ). I'm not expecting them to strip the formula down to a skeleton and run away with it, but it would be nice to see the series continue to evolve in more modern ways. The franchise was playing it a bit too safe for awhile there. That's not to say that they haven't added anything new at all, but they could have done more.

Personally, I prefer a more interesting map like Johto than open world. I just don't see how it would fit, since one of the things is that the wild Pokemon tend to escalate in level as you progress and your team get stronger. Linearity helps in that.

As someone mentioned above, level scaling could easily remedy this problem. It would take a little more programming, but it could be done.

What I don't want to see so much is hand holding. Put an option to skip the slow tutorials, Sun & Moon's intro was really slow for me. Just give me some weird excuse as to why I have a Pokemon and am going in a journey, then send me off.

Agreed. Again, I haven't played S/M, but I have heard that the game starts out a bit slow. I can see why they're there, but I got along just fine as a kid with my first Pokemon game (Gold). Granted, it took a couple of tries before I learned how to level my team in a balanced manner. XD

I'd personally love a darker, deeper Pokemon game, but from past experience/franchise familiarity, that wish will most likely be restricted to a spinoff.

I was thinking both. Getting my team to level 100 (and re-leveling a Dratini to boot) in GSC was borderline painful since I had to hang out around Mt. Silver battling level 40-somethings. You could always battle the Elite Four + Red as many times as you liked, but even that got boring and grind-y after awhile.

I'm thinking more trainers than wild Pokemon. Having wild Pokemon level scale could cause some problems if you decide to train up a Pokemon from scratch later in the game. But having trainers that could scale up, especially major battles like gym leaders, rival battles, and evil team encounters could work wonders. And this isn't exactly something that hasn't been done before either, the Vs. Seeker basically worked like this in the games it appeared in.

Considering it'll probably be a holiday 2018 title (with about a year and a half until that time), and the fact that they've likely had dev kits for a good while (like, before Switch's launch).... it's not illogical.

I certainly hope they've had Switch devkits for a while, because they're not going to make a 2018 release date unless they started on this game in 2015. Pokemon is an annual franchise, yes, but mainly because of third versions and remakes that reuse existing assets. New generations still take 3 years to develop, so they can't exactly pull them out of nowhere.

With them confirming it for 2018, I'm afraid the Pokémon game on Switch will be just a HD/deluxe version of Sun/Moon, basically a 3DS port instead of something that uses the Switch's power in any meaningful way to bring the franchise forward.

I might buy it still, now that it's coming to a home/hybrid console.
I bought a couple of Pokémon main series games on the handhelds ages ago, but for me gameplay got stale around Pokémon Ruby/Sapphire (3rd gen). However, I picked up most of the Pokémon home console spin-offs for N64, Gamecube, and Wii. I just like the (old) Pokémon world and the characters, but I'm not into most of the games anymore, especially not the core games. That can turn around if they put some high-end effort into the newest game with all the money they made.

The point is, there are Pokémon games that look great visually, but those that look great visually are unfortunately never the main series.

@SKTTR
I'm not afraid of that at all. I actually think it makes the most sense for them to basically take the existing formula, upscale the resolution, and craft a new storyline for their first effort on the Switch. In all honesty, Nintendo is probably pushing for this simplistic approach in order to get this thing out by the end of 2018, which would be fantastic for the new console from a business perspective. People who play Pokemon play it because they love the formula - it's going to sell insanely well on the Switch even if it's a carbon copy of Sun/Moon.

If the game does well, then maybe the devs set out on a second project that DOES go back to the core of the gameplay, strip it away, and make some major changes. But aside from a graphics boost and the usual small assortment of additions, I don't expect to see much different, but I also think it's the best choice to get us playing the game and get people on the console.

With them confirming it for 2018, I'm afraid the Pokémon game on Switch will be just a HD/deluxe version of Sun/Moon, basically a 3DS port instead of something that uses the Switch's power in any meaningful way to bring the franchise forward.

I might buy it still, now that it's coming to a home/hybrid console.
I bought a couple of Pokémon main series games on the handhelds ages ago, but for me gameplay got stale around Pokémon Ruby/Sapphire (3rd gen). However, I picked up most of the Pokémon home console spin-offs for N64, Gamecube, and Wii. I just like the (old) Pokémon world and the characters, but I'm not into most of the games anymore, especially not the core games. That can turn around if they put some high-end effort into the newest game with all the money they made.

The point is, there are Pokémon games that look great visually, but those that look great visually are unfortunately never the main series.

Do they really think they can get away with selling SM a third time? Third versions already sell half as much as the original versions, sometimes less. A Switch port of SM would probably sell terribly. That would be a huge mistake, they know they have to have something new for Switch if they want to make the big bucks.

As far as I'm concerned, if this game isn't a console quality experience, I'm skipping it. I've had enough of Game Freak's attitude of "strip everything down and don't give anyone any freedom because casuals" and if they're not going to bother making this game the high quality experience it deserves to be, I'm not throwing my money at it. For that matter, I might not buy another Pokemon game altogether until they start reversing this philosophy (except DP remakes, provide they don't screw it up THAT badly. But even then DP is the antithesis of pretty much everything Game Freak currently stands for which has me worried). Game Freak seriously needs to learn that the entire fanbase doesn't need their hand held.

On the topic of level scaling, in Little Battlers Experience, random encounters & story/quest battles were at set levels, however optional NPC battles scaled to your level (there are a bunch of these NPCs too, even in areas that also have random encounters, and you can battle them as many times as you want).

Maybe something like that could work for Pokémon as well? Wild Pokémon & Gym Leaders/Elite Four/Rival would be at set levels, while Trainers would scale to your level & you can re battle them at any time.

On the topic of level scaling, in Little Battlers Experience, random encounters & story/quest battles were at set levels, however optional NPC battles scaled to your level (there are a bunch of these NPCs too, even in areas that also have random encounters, and you can battle them as many times as you want).

Maybe something like that could work for Pokémon as well? Wild Pokémon & Gym Leaders/Elite Four/Rival would be at set levels, while Trainers would scale to your level & you can re battle them at any time.

That doesn't really serve the purpose of facilitating open progression though. The major battles are the ones that would most need to scale for the purpose of difficulty. Random trainers scaling would only really be good for grinding.

Making a big, HD RPG is a much bigger job then a hand held one. Might make more sense (and only be workable really) to change up the formula bit. Instead of making 2 versions of the game - just make 1 but have DLC support for 2-3 years between releases

I've said it before and I'll say it again: GameFreak will never stop the dual version gimmick. That way, they can sell the same game twice to a decent number of people. Even disregarding other factors behind the decision, it's just makes too much business sense.

In hindsight it is so weird that this wasn't announced in the Pokemon Direct. I was sure that there wouldn't be an announcement at E3 after there wasn't one in that video — do you guys think they threw together that video in the less-than-a week between the Direct and Spotlight after everyone got mad at Pokemon for no reason?

In hindsight it is so weird that this wasn't announced in the Pokemon Direct. I was sure that there wouldn't be an announcement at E3 after there wasn't one in that video — do you guys think they threw together that video in the less-than-a week between the Direct and Spotlight after everyone got mad at Pokemon for no reason?

I think that's exactly what happened. The Pokemon Direct was such a disappointment for a large portion of the fanbase and so many people were expecting Stars that Game Freak had to announce the Switch game earlier than they normally would as damage control.

@Bolt_Strike But that announcement would do nothing for the Pokémon company in a Pokémon direct whereas it would certainly cement long term support in a Switch focused presentation. There are not too many instances of anger and frustration dictating what Nintendo does.

I never drive faster than I can see. Besides, it's all in the reflexes.

@Haru17 For what's worth, Joe Merrick (the Serebii guy) is adamant on this game being a 2019 release due to a number of factors, namely that the anime is planned according to GameFreak's release schedule. It seems to be too soon for it to finish its current arc since Ash has only visited one or two islands.

Personally, I believe him. The Switch game has to be a new gen and not something 7th gen-related, and 2018 is too soon for gen 8.

@Haru17 First option. Can't see their first game on the Switch being a remake, it won't sell as much as an entirely new game to cover the expenses of HD development. They could release a gen 7 port, but they'd be selling us the same game three years in a row.

@MarcelRguez Hmm. I guess Animal Crossing is next year then? Maybe? Surely The Pokemon Company and Nintendo talk about these things. It'll be sort of a strange shift, going from a launch year filled with two big core singleplayer and multiplayer games to a year with a lot of casual games and RPGs, out of which only Kirby has and sort of direct multiplayer component.

@Haru17 I hope Animal Crossing is next year and I don't see why it wouldn't be. They already made tons of HD assets for Amiibo Festival and I doubt the entire team was working on Splatoon 2. The AC mobile game releases this year, supposedly, so they have a perfect chance to reveal both games at once.

I think it's wise of them to release their big multiplayer guns early on in the Switch's lifespan. Pokkén didn't have much chance to shine the first time around because it was released on the Wii U so late, for example. They wouldn't want to repeat that mistake.